http://proxy.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2007/...e=Finalists1-10 99 spurs at No.8 over the 00-01 Lakers? Are you kidding me?
<div class="quote_poster">Mamba Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">What a joke, once again BSPN writers prove their credibility...or lack their of.</div> I've seen that phrase used quite a bit recently. But seriously though, who gives a crap?
<div class="quote_poster">Brian Wrote</div><div class="quote_post"> I've seen that phrase used quite a bit recently. But seriously though, who gives a crap?</div> Exactly who gives a crap.It's just some writers opinion on his best Championship teams.
I bet technically, the 00-01 Lakers are better than the 98-99 Spurs, but I think BSPN wanted more diversity and chose a team other than the Bulls, Lakers or Celts. But hell yah, the the 00-01 Lakers own the 99 Spurs. BTW: The Ducks are about 3 mins away from having their names engraved in the Stanley Cup.
this list is stupid because he has some "point" system to determine who's better than who.........the 99 Spurs weren't even the best of the spurs teams
Is it a joke because you guys don't like the results? I enjoyed the piece, Hollinger created a formula to test the age old debate of "who is the best team ever?" He clearly explained the formula and margin of victory was a heavy factor to determine which team was the best.
The '99 Spurs over some of the recent Spurs teams? The '99 spurs over the 00-01 Lakers? It wasn't a terrible list, but it lost a lot of credibility for picking a championship team in a season cut way short.
I agree with shape. It is a point based thing so it is hard to argue that this guy is an idiot or anything. He used a formula that seemed pretty dang accurate to me. The 99 spurs team had some incredible statistics, so I don't see the big deal.
<div class="quote_poster">Mamba Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">The '99 Spurs over some of the recent Spurs teams? The '99 spurs over the 00-01 Lakers? It wasn't a terrible list, but it lost a lot of credibility for picking a championship team in a season cut way short.</div> It's just a ranking system based on his formula. The 1999 Spurs had some great numbers albeit a shortened season. The 2000-01 Lakers weren't as dominating during the regular season. The Lakers just coasted to through the regular season and then turned it on in the post season. Not completely dominating the regular season holds them back. I do agree the 2000-01 Lakers were the better team. Shaq owned Duncan and Robinson when they matched up against him. However, this formula is taking everything into account, and based on the numbers the 1999 Spurs had a more well-rounded season, statistically speaking.
I do agree with most of the list. However, it is kinda strange that the team that fiinished with the best postseason record ever and won the most consecutive postseason games got left out of the top 10.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">What a joke, once again BSPN writers prove their credibility...or lack their of.</div> There not as bad as sports illustrated man. Seriously, I always check SI.com just cause there the only other site out there besides ESPN, and they are always SO F***ING behind on everything. When the Kobe trade stuff came out last week, while ESPN was reporting that Kobe had rescinded his request, SI was literally just announcing that Kobe had asked to be traded. I seriously think that the guys over at SI just check the espn website to see whats up, and then paraphrase what they said.
I HATE SI. I go there once every morning to check their rumor mill. BTW, another thing I disagree with. I think I'd take the '87 Lakers over the '96 Bulls. I think Magic, Big Game James, and Capt. Skyhook would crush MJ and Pippen.
<div class="quote_poster">Mamba Wrote</div><div class="quote_post">I HATE SI. I go there once every morning to check their rumor mill. BTW, another thing I disagree with. I think I'd take the '87 Lakers over the '96 Bulls. I think Magic, Big Game James, and Capt. Skyhook would crush MJ and Pippen.</div> In this case, Hollinger is rewarding the Bulls for playing in a more shallow NBA.
It?s his opinion and I respect that, to me the greatest team ever is the ?87 Lakers. They?ve beaten the defending champion ?86 Celtics (regarded as one of the best all time). I realize that ?87 Celtics is not the ?86 Celtics but the core is pretty much the same. Winning 72 games is impressive but doing it in a watered down league , remember 5 of those wins are from expansion teams (Raptors & Grizzlies). Showtime Lakers is the greatest team ever. They played in the toughest era IMHO. All the teams that won the championship in the 80's, (Celtics, Sixers & Pistons) they have beaten. For those years they haven?t won, in ?83 Finals Worthy was injured, ?89 Magic and Scott were injured. Those Lakers teams would?ve made things interesting, especially the ?89 Lakers. Who did the ?96 Bulls beat? the Supersonics, no disrespect they?re a good team but Bird's Celtics is so much better........ the team the Lakers beat in '87.
